Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[westwall]

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

There is no "law" of Biogenesis. It is a BELIEF not unlike your belief in "creationism".

And Pasteur pretty solidly proved it false.

 

[itfitzme]

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

you mean the one I've debunked at least 101 times ..?

 

[itfitzme]

nature, all of it.

really ! So you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

hypothesis!!!

 

[daws101]

really ! So you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

hypothesis!!!

specious erroneous conjecture based on a non verifiable assumption..
I think that about covers it.

 

[itfitzme]

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

hypothesis!!!

specious erroneous conjecture based on a non verifiable assumption..
I think that about covers it.

 

[Big_D2]

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease. It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?

 

[westwall]

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease. It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?

What practical applications derive from art? Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.

 

[daws101]

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease. It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?

cross burning and goats who stand in front of striped posts will have striped offspring.
climate change is a hoax etc... great party trivia

 

[daws101]

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease. It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?

What practical applications derive from art? Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

 

[westwall]

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease. It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?

What practical applications derive from art? Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

 

[Big_D2]

What practical applications derive from art? Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

 

[daws101]

What practical applications derive from art? Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

you're right...imo we make meaning and purpose ..life is just life.

 

[daws101]

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

creationism could be taught as a example of the dangers of superstition or the power of belief.
that kind of knowledge has great practical benefits.
creationism will not teach you to connect your dvd correctly.

 

[westwall]

snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

 

[westwall]

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

creationism could be taught as a example of the dangers of superstition or the power of belief.
that kind of knowledge has great practical benefits.
creationism will not teach you to connect your dvd correctly.

! it can also be used to teach how thought processes have changed through the millennia and can also be used to show how belief in a higher form can lead people to do extraordinary things that they would not have done otherwise. Creationism is not a negative, it just is. Anyone who denigrate creationists and thinks of themselves as somehow morally superior is deluding themselves. The only thing that matters is how people interact with each other, a gay vegan who murders someone is no better than the creationist nutter who does the same now are they?

 

[Big_D2]

Creationism makes some people feel good. It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior. Just like art.

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.





Edit page | Page history | Printable version
Dictionary » L » Law of biogenesis
Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Law of biogenesis - definition from Biology-Online.org

law of biogenesis
Web definitions
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

Law Of Biogenesis
Search for Law Of Biogenesis With 100's of Results at WebCrawler
law.webcrawler.com/

biogenesis /bio·gen·e·sis/ (-jen´ĕ-sis)
1. origin of life, or of living organisms.
2. the theory that living organisms originate only from other living organisms.

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now would you like to produce that evidence for nonliving material producing life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nature, all of it.

Really ! so you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

 

[itfitzme]

Really ! so you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".